He's right on this....."scrap the childen allowance" says O'Leary.

Eric Cartman · 22-11-2011 05:47PM

all child related benefits should be scrapped and replaced by a lowering of the higher rate of income tax by 5% per child up to 4 children , This would end the situation where poor people / people on the dole are having kids to get money and encourage the currently childless couples who are doing well to have children in exchange for a decent tax break.

The world cant live off the spawn of a bunch of uneducated wasters who sit at home all day and have no greater aspirations than staying in their council house all day until the smokes and drink finally kill them

donalg1 · 22-11-2011 05:49PM

Dont think just scrapping it is the way to go now, but it should certainly be means tested at the very least, and anyone on Social Welfare who is receiving the qualified child payment of 29.80 per week should not be getting it as they are technically getting it twice, if they are to be given anything they should be given the difference between the childrens allowance and child dependant payment which works out around €6 per week and no more.

seanmc1980 · 22-11-2011 05:51PM

Hells Belle wrote: »

And they spend all their C/A on fags? Presuming it's one child it's 300 fags per month or 70 ish per week. Depending on brand of course and you know poor people love brands....

Come on, according to your link the average smoker is a male aged 25-44, unemployed and living in Munster. Not single mothers who you seem to have the biggest problem with.

Maybe you should have read the full research before cherrypicking what you thought backed up your views.

is it reasonable that family collecting the C/A would spend 70 euro on fags and drink?
i havn't the slightes problem with sigle mothers. i have a problem with the gov paying my taxes to people to have chidren. as i've said before raise your own chidren don't expect hand outs from the gov.

the atricle was quiet specific 60% of smokers are from lower income's it doesn't take a leap of faith to put 2 and 2 together.

saywhatyousee · 22-11-2011 05:56PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

i've said before raise your own chidren don't expect hand outs from the gov.

Fair enough dont be complaining in a few years time when there are no taxpayers to pay for your pension.

seanmc1980 · 22-11-2011 05:56PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

all child related benefits should be scrapped and replaced by a lowering of the higher rate of income tax by 5% per child up to 4 children , This would end the situation where poor people / people on the dole are having kids to get money and encourage the currently childless couples who are doing well to have children in exchange for a decent tax break.

great solution eric if u want kids work and you will get a tax break.

Galtee · 22-11-2011 05:58PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

great solution eric if u want kids work and you will get a tax break.

And what about if you can't get a job?

seanmc1980 · 22-11-2011 06:00PM

saywhatyousee wrote: »

Fair enough dont be complaining in a few years time when there are no taxpayers to pay for your pension.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! don't worry about my pension love thats the benfits of having a private pension! lol good laugh there!

seanmc1980 · 22-11-2011 06:03PM

Galtee wrote: »

And what about if you can't get a job?

2 options, get a job or emigrate. there is loads of work out there in ireland and abroad.

Sparkyd2002 · 22-11-2011 06:05PM

Galtee wrote: »

And, in the system you live in you are entitled to a child benefit because you have children. You can't just pick and choose what suits you. :rolleyes:

eh actually i can. but that doesnt make it right! I could just not take my Childrens allowance on prinipal but then that would make me an idiot ! Im saying a blanket benefit irrespective of financial status payed for by the revenue/borrowings of the govt is wrong.

Galtee · 22-11-2011 06:45PM

Sparkyd2002 wrote: »

eh actually i can. but that doesnt make it right! I could just not take my Childrens allowance on prinipal but then that would make me an idiot ! Im saying a blanket benefit irrespective of financial status payed for by the revenue/borrowings of the govt is wrong.

eh actually no you can't, you're entitled to child benefit if you have children, you can't do anything about that, the general point being made was that people tend to pick on this item alone because they automatically think that being a taxpayer gives them the moral highground and it doesn't. Handing it back wouldn't make a person an idiot if they were sticking by a principle and showing they have morals, taking it despite their principle and still moaning about it would make someone an idiot.

dj jarvis · 22-11-2011 07:33PM

Dudess wrote: »

Working people get children's allowance so I don't get what the "Don't have kids if you can't afford them" stuff is about.

Well I don't understand why anyone would come out with that monumentally stupid line in any context, but there you go...

i agree 100% , some sh1te being posted here , and i would wager that all the people who are bitching about hard luck cases getting a hand out also got CA for them when they where children , did they give it back ? they did in their bollox - and did any of you go to college of the backs of my taxes ? why should i pay for you ? BECAUSE ITS GOOD FOR US ALL
and most are taking the education paid for by me and they leaving the country and not repaying the 80,000 per gob****e debt to the people
in that case you are also as bad as the dole and tax cheats

so i suggest people in glass house's should shut the f2uk up

a panel of experts and social commentators on newstalk today branded anyone who suggest that people should not have kids if they cant afford them as idiotic morons who muddy the gene pool- FFS do you people not think before you post??????

oxygen thieves the lot of ya

mloc · 22-11-2011 07:38PM

If you can't afford to have children, don't.

It's ridiculous to have a child and then expect everyone else to pay for its upbringing.

EDIT:

Contraception is available free for those on lower incomes.

dj jarvis · 22-11-2011 07:44PM

mloc wrote: »

If you can't afford to have children, don't.

It's ridiculous to have a child and then expect everyone else to pay for it's upbringing.

can i ask did your parents receive child benefit ? were they working ?
did you got to college ? did you receive grants or "free education" ?
did you or your parents receive mortgage interest relief payments ?
if you have a family do you get the child benefit payments ?

why should we as tax payers subsidize you for all of the above ?

( not picking on you - just making a point , people forget they get benefits all the time , we should call a spade a spade , if your " middle class " is cool but out of work then f you )

mloc · 22-11-2011 07:45PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

can i ask did your parents receive child benefit ? were they working ?
did you got to college ? did you receive grants or "free education" ?
did you or your pparents receive mortgage interest relief payments ?
if you have a family do you get the child benefit payments ?

why should we as tax payers subsidize you for all of the above ?

( not picking on you - just making a point , people forget they get benefits all the time , we should call a spade a spade , if your " middle class " is cool but out of work the f you )

I'm sorry, I can't see your argument through all the straw men.

dj jarvis · 22-11-2011 07:47PM

mloc wrote: »

I'm sorry, I can't see your argument through all the straw men.

what a cop out

answer the question - but you wont , becasue you have no answer

but please enlighten me on the straw man part - how am i twisting your words???
its a simple question , you made a statement and have been challenged so its a fair question

unless your really cant answer it

mloc · 22-11-2011 07:50PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

can i ask did your parents receive child benefit ? were they working ?
did you got to college ? did you receive grants or "free education" ?
did you or your parents receive mortgage interest relief payments ?
if you have a family do you get the child benefit payments ?

why should we as tax payers subsidize you for all of the above ?

( not picking on you - just making a point , people forget they get benefits all the time , we should call a spade a spade , if your " middle class " is cool but out of work then f you )

Right, if you insist.

My parents were working and received child benefit. I went to college, and I did not receive a grant. They did not receive mortgage relief (to my knowledge). I don't have a family.

No one should receive child benefit. I believe in college fees, and I think students should contribute.

By your logic, those that contribute the most should receive the least?

My name is URL · 22-11-2011 07:51PM

mloc wrote: »

If you can't afford to have children, don't.

It's ridiculous to have a child and then expect everyone else to pay for its upbringing.

'Everyone else' pays for many aspects of bringing up a child. Would you extend your logic to education? If you can't afford to pay the private fees to have your child schooled then don't expect 'everyone else' to pay for it. :rolleyes:

mloc · 22-11-2011 07:59PM

My name is URL wrote: »

'Everyone else' pays for many aspects of bringing up a child. Would you extend your logic to education? If you can't afford to pay the private fees to have your child schooled then don't expect 'everyone else' to pay for it. :rolleyes:

I think primary and secondary education should be free. Not third level.

Quality education is important for any child, from any background.

I do think, however, that those who cannot afford to raise a child should not have one. It is damaging to the child, to the parents and to society. Of course, having a child is a right, but it also comes with the responsibility of raising it and funding it yourself.

The fundamental issue is in Ireland, people see the taxpayer as a some sort of arm of the government. Instead of thinking every time an entitlement is claimed, "This is coming from someone else's pocket" there is a tendency in Ireland to think of getting one up on the government and claiming and demanding as much as they can. There is no social conscience.

dj jarvis · 22-11-2011 07:59PM

mloc wrote: »

Right, if you insist.

My parents were working and received child benefit. I went to college, and I did not receive a grant. They did not receive mortgage relief (to my knowledge). I don't have a family.

No one should receive child benefit. I believe in college fees, and I think students should contribute.

By your logic, those that contribute the most should receive the least?

as i thought - rubbish , you believe in college fees but you paid none !!
and it was ok for your parents to get CB but not others

i suggest you think before you post in future

tbh i got the answer from you i thought i was going to get

becasue your post was tripe so was your answer

mloc · 22-11-2011 08:02PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

as i thought - rubbish , you believe in college fees but you paid none !!
and it was ok for your parents to get CB but not others

i suggest you think before you post in future

tbh i got the answer from you i thought i was going to get

becasue your post was tripe so was your answer

The lack of logic in this post is astounding.

For a start, I'm not my parents and we have very different political views.

Secondly, laws change. You're saying that because of the laws in the past I'm not allowed have views on how they should change in the future?

saywhatyousee · 22-11-2011 08:03PM

seanmc1980 wrote: »

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! don't worry about my pension love thats the benfits of having a private pension! lol good laugh there!

Your pension probaly will be wiped out completely within the next two years you should watch Bloomberg channel 502 pension funds the world over are being decimated.

dj jarvis · 22-11-2011 08:20PM

mloc wrote: »

The lack of logic in this post is astounding.

For a start, I'm not my parents and we have very different political views.

Secondly, laws change. You're saying that because of the laws in the past I'm not allowed have views on how they should change in the future?

you do understand what logic is dont you ???

i know your not your parents - neither are the children of the people you want to stop getting CA

and im saying its some cheek to say other should not get what you got
and if your parents had a mortgage they got the relief

listen im guessing by your post that your young and have little life experience in these matters , you can be a right wing keyboard warrior all ya want but does not make your post anymore valid
- tell ya what come back to us when you have developed a moral frame work and a sense of charity for your fellow citizens

the reason we pay social insurance is for these very people , the clue is in the title

mloc · 22-11-2011 08:23PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

you do understand what logic is dont you ???

i know your not your parents - neither are the children of the people you want to stop getting CA

and im saying its some cheek to say other should not get what you got
and if your parents had a mortgage they got the relief

listen im guessing by your post that your young and have little life experience in these matters , you can be a right wing keyboard warrior all ya want but does not make your post anymore valid
- tell ya what come back to us when you have developed a moral frame work and a sense of charity for your fellow citizens

the reason we pay social insurance is for these very people , the clue is in the title

Answer this: are we are not allowed change the taxation system because people used to get more?

If you can leave out the ad hominem and straw men and stick to the issue at hand, it would save a lot of wasted bandwidth.

dj jarvis · 22-11-2011 08:34PM

mloc wrote: »

Answer this: are we are not allowed change the taxation system because people used to get more?

If you can leave out the ad hominem and straw men and stick to the issue at hand, it would save a lot of wasted bandwidth.

all i can hear is bla bla bla - me stick to the story , how about you answer some of the question i asked you in the last two posts????

the model you are proposing is the one they use in America , you cant afford it? , well tough on ya - and we see how that is working for the might usa, biggest prison population in the world , social deprivation for the lower classes leading to all kinds of trouble for the rest of the citizens

you see you cant deny that nations that give a sh1t about the citizens ( scandinavian , german dutch and french ) have less crime , better health and a all round better life for ALL in comparison to nations that dont care

why are the above nations ALL ranked in the top ten of oecd best nations listing - and the model you support are in the low 30's ?

so as i said in a previous post - you dont like the way it is here , either get the politicans to change the laws and stop CB or you leave here and go to what ever right wing utopian country you want

really i feel sorry for you

My name is URL · 22-11-2011 08:43PM

mloc wrote: »

I think primary and secondary education should be free. Not third level.

Quality education is important for any child, from any background.

I do think, however, that those who cannot afford to raise a child should not have one. It is damaging to the child, to the parents and to society. Of course, having a child is a right, but it also comes with the responsibility of raising it and funding it yourself.

This is mentioned again and again in this thread. How exactly is it determined that one can 'afford to raise' a child? What criteria is used to set the standard for that?

My point about education was that it too is a socially provided service, in many ways it's no different than the dole or Children's Allowance. I don't get how people can whine about one existing; and at the same time continue to take for granted the other.

I agree with your last paragraph fwiw.. about people abusing the system. And abuse should be cracked down on big time.. but not by begrudging everyone an entitlement to some varying degree of assistance.

Dudess · 22-11-2011 08:45PM

My name is URL wrote: »

This is mentioned again and again in this thread. How exactly is it determined that one can 'afford to raise' a child?

What it translates as is: "I am selfish and greedy and I don't like anyone who is less fortunate than me receiving a helping hand, because they're getting something and I'm not".

Not talking about the scroungers (IF they're as commonplace as people say they are, which I personally doubt) but people who genuinely never had much of a chance. We're not all born on an equal footing, and while some people might say they should take responsibility for themselves and get a job, get an education (just by magic) it's very easy to say that from the position of being able to do so.
Sure, some people come from nothing and do very well for themselves, but they usually have family support. What about those who have neither family support nor education nor are employable? "Get a job" - yeah whatever. Like people who say that would give a junkie or a person with virtually no education a job.

It's very worrying that so many people think that way - even suspicious of St Vincent De Paul etc. It's Tea Party kinda sh1t... :-/

Communism is unworkable, but I'd sure as hell prefer it in theory to the "Let them eat cake" kinda thinking on this thread...

Plus, circumstances change - that's why it's not always possible to be one hundred per cent certain that you will be financially secure enough to raise your child(ren) comfortably. E.g. breaking up with your partner, losing your job... but I shouldn't have to list those things really - they're very basic, obvious things that the "If you can't afford children, don't have them" geniuses are more than well aware of.

mloc · 22-11-2011 08:51PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

all i can hear is bla bla bla - me stick to the story , how about you answer some of the question i asked you in the last two posts????

the model you are proposing is the one they use in America , you cant afford it? , well tough on ya - and we see how that is working for the might usa, biggest prison population in the world , social deprivation for the lower classes leading to all kinds of trouble for the rest of the citizens

you see you cant deny that nations that give a sh1t about the citizens ( scandinavian , german dutch and french ) have less crime , better health and a all round better life for ALL in comparison to nations that dont care

why are the above nations ALL ranked in the top ten of oecd best nations listing - and the model you support are in the low 30's ?

so as i said in a previous post - you dont like the way it is here , either get the politicans to change the laws and stop CB or you leave here and go to what ever right wing utopian country you want

really i feel sorry for you

You still didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it in case you might have missed it:

Do you believe that because entitlements were received in the past, they must be received in the future?

mloc · 22-11-2011 08:53PM

Dudess wrote: »

t's Tea Party kinda sh1t... :-/

I'm a libertarian; I support the original ideas of the tea party such a limited government, low taxation and reduction in entitlements.

I don't support the social conservatism that has permeated the Tea Party.

Dudess · 22-11-2011 08:57PM

mloc wrote: »

I'm a libertarian; I support the original ideas of the tea party such a limited government, low taxation and reduction in entitlements.

It marginalises people who are stuck in the poverty trap and can't get out of there. That is obviously just going to lead to more societal problems.

dj jarvis · 22-11-2011 09:01PM

mloc wrote: »

You still didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it in case you might have missed it:

Do you believe that because entitlements were received in the past, they must be received in the future?

no i dont - but does not change the fact that you are asking for something to be taken away from others that you and your family got ,

why are you and your kin so special ?
it should be changed to reflect the need of the recipient and the means of the recipient to pay their own way - simple

so how does that fit in with your privileged ideal of a democratic republic ?
you were the person that said " dont have kids if you cant afford them"
so please break down how you would work that great idea?

for example lets say your parents were working when they had you , then both lost their jobs , does that mean they should not get any help becasue they cant afford you ???/ do you understand how stupid that statement makes you look???

do you suggest we " humanly " dispose of children that parents cant afford ??
you really really just don't get it do you , so i propose you start a political party who's social welfare policy does not include any help for people who " cant afford kids " - and while we are at it college fees or dole

lets see how far you get - back to the dark ages with ya son - you have some growing up 2 do

He's right on this....."scrap the childen allowance" says O'Leary.

Comments